General Discussion (dev branch)

[SuicideKing 233]

Quote

Tweaked: Using ammunition with the Datalink does not require line of sight on the target anymore  

Tweaked: Using ammunition with radar does not require active sensors anymore 

 

The fact that this ties in to datalink is concerning to me - since up until now datalink implied data sharing rather than "i can target something with radar guided missiles without exposing myself or using my own radar". The problem being that some existing missions may well break once this hits stable, especially given the non-LOS nature of things. Would urge this functionality to be moved to another parameter/attribute, "Allow target sharing" or something instead of datalink send/receive. 

 

I also think this sorta breaks the balance for long range SAMs like the Centurion that also get their own radar. It would be fine of course for standalone search radars with dependent SAM launchers, but it seems weird to apply this to systems that already use their own radar (as the implication is that their missiles and targeting don't rely on data collected by external sources for targeting). Likewise, i'm curious (not in a good way) how this will impact air combat.

 

IMO there's an opportunity here to integrate this datalink/target sharing functionality with the Edit Terrain Object module - to allow for the various radar domes to send data/target info to a selected SIDE.

 

p.s. Any news on Anti-Radiation Missile variants of existing AGMs?

[Vasily.B 529]

I switched to dev branch and i'm impressed! tanks finally behave like tanks, however i noticed few strange things;
- After moving tank by splendid camera (space key) tracks have lost their moving animation - i needed to disembark and get in to driver seat.
- Wheelled Gordon APC is leaning in opposite directions while moving forward/backward.

Still testing, but now i'm very enjoying it. GOOD WORK!

[kiory 405]

Having issues with turrets and hatches, (for a custom tank) mine worked fine in stable, but for some reason they won't animate in Dev branch and for the life of me I can't work out why, there doesn't seems to be any fundamental changes to how they work, unless I'm missing something?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

21 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

 

The fact that this ties in to datalink is concerning to me - since up until now datalink implied data sharing rather than "i can target something with radar guided missiles without exposing myself or using my own radar". The problem being that some existing missions may well break once this hits stable, especially given the non-LOS nature of things. Would urge this functionality to be moved to another parameter/attribute, "Allow target sharing" or something instead of datalink send/receive. 

 

I also think this sorta breaks the balance for long range SAMs like the Centurion that also get their own radar. It would be fine of course for standalone search radars with dependent SAM launchers, but it seems weird to apply this to systems that already use their own radar (as the implication is that their missiles and targeting don't rely on data collected by external sources for targeting). Likewise, i'm curious (not in a good way) how this will impact air combat.

 

IMO there's an opportunity here to integrate this datalink/target sharing functionality with the Edit Terrain Object module - to allow for the various radar domes to send data/target info to a selected SIDE.

 

p.s. Any news on Anti-Radiation Missile variants of existing AGMs?

 

Data Sharing is not on by default for most vehicles.  The only entities with Data Sharing on by default are the new turrets introduced with Jets DLC.  This should ensure that legacy missions are not impacted negatively.

 

In regards to the the Centurion/Spartan: one benefit of allowing the new non-LOS weapon locking using data shared from another active radar source is that you can have that Centurion/Spartan engaging targets without having to activate it's own radar.  Naturally the benefit of this is that the turret is concealed from the RWR.  Pilots could potentially only see one active radar source but could potentially be engaged by many more launchers.

This can lead to exciting mission scenario designs whereby 'SOF' have to infiltrate the enemy area and destroy the lone active radar in order to disable many launchers.

The balancing aspect, as always, is down to the scenario designer. :)

 

I do love the idea of a static object that could simply house a 360 degree active radar capability and this is something I mentioned the minute they announced the sensor update.  For the time being my only recommendation is to use the Praetorian CIWS with 0 ammunition loaded with data sharing enabled.

[reyhard 2082]

1 hour ago, kiory said:

Having issues with turrets and hatches, (for a custom tank) mine worked fine in stable, but for some reason they won't animate in Dev branch and for the life of me I can't work out why, there doesn't seems to be any fundamental changes to how they work, unless I'm missing something?

Tried some Vanillia & RHS and I haven't found any issues with hatches - can you elaborate a little on this one? Are you inheriting from some base vanila vehicle maybe?

[Callsign 128]

1 hour ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

This can lead to exciting mission scenario designs whereby 'SOF' have to infiltrate the enemy area and destroy the lone active radar in order to disable many launchers.

To follow on but slightly offtopic - the first mission of Harvest Red would have had much greater significance if datalink had been a feature back then!

[Beagle 684]

BUG Report

 

Development Branch version 143385.

 

Drivers rearview mirrors do not work at all in AMV-7 Marshal, left one does not work with Gorgon APC, but with Marid all rearview mirrors work fine.

[SuicideKing 233]

5 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

The only entities with Data Sharing on by default are the new turrets introduced with Jets DLC

That's not true, the Cheetah and Tigris have this on too (i just checked). Additionally the fact that the turrets have it is a problem as well - we already have them in a few missions (Jets was out in March, it's been over half a year). Given the current (stable branch) nature of datalink, it has also been used for aircraft. Finally, EMCON behaviour isn't terribly consistent - with default (or even forced on) EMCON, a turret may have its radar off from the start or turn it off later. With the new datalink behaviour, you may end up with a lock and launch even before it turns its radar on, in some cases.

 

5 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

This should ensure that legacy missions are not impacted negatively.

I said existing and not legacy! (see point about 6 months having passed since Jets). And again, as noted, SPAAGs are affected too.

 

5 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

The balancing aspect, as always, is down to the scenario designer

Of course, my problem is mostly with existing stuff breaking, and that I prefer an additional attribute to make this clearer from existing behaviour. Further, there may be cases where data sharing is desired but remote target locking is not desired (especially relevant to player controlled aircraft).

[kiory 405]

10 hours ago, reyhard said:

Tried some Vanillia & RHS and I haven't found any issues with hatches - can you elaborate a little on this one? Are you inheriting from some base vanila vehicle maybe?

Hmm, I hadn't considered the posibility of inheritance in the config.cpp causing it, it's inheriting from B_APC_Tracked_01_rcws_F, perhaps I should try another class, thanks for the lead. I kind assumed it would of worked considering it's still TankX.

 

:edit:

 

So I've just double checked, tried inheriting from B_MBT_01_cannon_f as well, no dice, I have no clue what's going on, because it was all working on stable.

[dr. hladik 231]

On 10/23/2017 at 3:43 PM, SuicideKing said:

 

The fact that this ties in to datalink is concerning to me - since up until now datalink implied data sharing rather than "i can target something with radar guided missiles without exposing myself or using my own radar". The problem being that some existing missions may well break once this hits stable, especially given the non-LOS nature of things. Would urge this functionality to be moved to another parameter/attribute, "Allow target sharing" or something instead of datalink send/receive. 

 

I also think this sorta breaks the balance for long range SAMs like the Centurion that also get their own radar. It would be fine of course for standalone search radars with dependent SAM launchers, but it seems weird to apply this to systems that already use their own radar (as the implication is that their missiles and targeting don't rely on data collected by external sources for targeting). Likewise, i'm curious (not in a good way) how this will impact air combat.

 

IMO there's an opportunity here to integrate this datalink/target sharing functionality with the Edit Terrain Object module - to allow for the various radar domes to send data/target info to a selected SIDE.

 

p.s. Any news on Anti-Radiation Missile variants of existing AGMs?

 

Ammo needs "datalink sensor" to be able to lock on datalink target without LOS.

(radar guided missiles still need valid LOS)

[lex__1 422]

On 12.10.2017 at 4:57 PM, lex__1 said:

Something happened to the observer's camera in the editor at 1.77 ... The game breaks when trying to go to the object of observation.
In version 1.76, this problem is not reproduced.

!!! Before attempting to reproduce this problem, close and save other applications, it may be necessary to restart the PC !!!

Error Report

 

 

My PC again almost died, after trying to turn on the observer's camera. I forgot that there is a problem, remembered when I pressed the camera :(  . The game freezes, then the signal from the video card disappears.
Please correct this.

ArmaReport_Log

[ski2060 167]

8 hours ago, dr. hladik said:

 

Ammo needs "datalink sensor" to be able to lock on datalink target without LOS.

(radar guided missiles still need valid LOS)

So, are there actually any Datalink Sensor missiles in the game as of yet?  Are all vanilla Radar Seeking missiles only on Active Radar lock?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

 

// Tanoa
// editor, put down OPFOR playable unit, run scenario and execute the below
0 spawn {
	systemchat 'starting';
	QS_TEST = TRUE;
	_position_1 = [11362.9,13112.7,1];
	_position_2 = [11254.3,13116.3,1];
	QS_position = _position_2;
	_vehicle = createVehicle ['O_T_MRAP_02_ghex_F',_position_1,[],0,'NONE'];
	createVehicleCrew _vehicle;
	_group = group (effectiveCommander _vehicle);
	_driver = driver _vehicle;
	_vehicle setDir (_position_1 getDir _position_2);
	_vehicle lockDriver TRUE;
	
	player setpos (_vehicle getRelPos [20,180]);
	player setdir (player getdir _vehicle);
	player moveInCargo _vehicle;
	
	_e = addmissioneventhandler [
		'draw3d',
		{
			drawIcon3D [
				'a3\ui_f\data\igui\cfg\revive\overlayIcons\f100_ca.paa',
				[1,0,0,1],
				QS_position,
				1,
				1,
				0
			];		
		}
	];
	
	_driver doMove QS_position;
	while {QS_TEST} do {
		sleep 15;
		if (QS_position isEqualTo _position_1) then {
			QS_position = _position_2;
		} else {
			QS_position = _position_1;
		};
		_driver doMove QS_position;
		systemchat format ['moving %1',diag_ticktime];
	};
	removemissioneventhandler ['draw3d',_e];
	systemchat 'exited';
};

 

im just not sure what the dev/QA priorities are anymore

 

[h - 169]

That's just hilarious (not)..

[Vasily.B 529]

BIS have stated they are lacking in AI programers. That explain pretty much - finally they started fixing other things, and meanwhile ( i hope so) they looking for some good AI guys, i hope they find them and finish this game, as its getting better and better in terms of long awaited tracked vehicles. Problem is, without proper AI there will be no use of even greatest features :(

[dragon01 902]

It's probably not that easy to find programmers good at doing AI. It's a very complex matter and I wouldn't be surprised if suitable talent was in short supply. 

[haleks 8212]

I think part of the problem is that large bits & pieces of Arma3 are built on an aging engine with tons of old and obsolete script commands to deal with. A lot of features have been added or tweaked, but essentially the game hasn't changed that much since OFP.

Just think of the "building positions" tech and how difficult it is for the AI to move indoors, compare that to today's standards in most open-world games (MGSV, GTA, Destiny, The Witcher, Skyrim etc etc)... I mean, heck, this is Arma3, and there's absolutely no way to force an AI to actually run while inside a building.

[das attorney 858]

1 hour ago, haleks said:

 mean, heck, this is Arma3, and there's absolutely no way to force an AI to actually run while inside a building.

 

 

You can, but you won't want to!   

 

do createAgent, then setDestination command inside a building using "LEADER DIRECT" as the planning mode.  They run through the walls and all sorts of nonsense ensues.

 

(This was a while ago I checked and it might have changed, but I do definitely remember them ghosting through objects).

[kiory 405]

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127003

I've finally managed to pin point my issue with the turret and hatch animations, it's a bizarre one but hopefully someone can help.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Not sure when it finally got implemented but the dispersion on the unguided aircraft rockets are a nice touch!

[Strike_NOR 898]

16 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Not sure when it finally got implemented but the dispersion on the unguided aircraft rockets are a nice touch!

 

It happened a few patches back. RHS S-8 rocket pods become incredibly cool with this feature (more like a directed cluster bomb, rather than a dropped one).

 

While very performance heavy for a game, many real life rocket pods typically unleash in a huge volley at once, peppering the target area. They always felt like sniper weapons in vanilla ArmA due to their perfect accuracy.

 

I'm happy the devs saw time to include this :) It's a really cool feature.

 

Here's a real rocket attack with Mi-24 

 

 

[das attorney 858]

Quote

No update today due to technical issues.

 

idk - so many technical issues on Fridays!  

 

[ProfTournesol 956]

TGIF

[froggyluv 2135]

33 minutes ago, das attorney said:

 

idk - so many technical issues on Fridays!  

 

 

 Well "technically" it is part of the weekend....

[R3vo 2654]

2 hours ago, das attorney said:

 

idk - so many technical issues on Fridays!  

 

 

Two days with technical issues in a row, means a large update on monday. Looking forward to it ;)